Ain Shams Engineering Journal (2014) 5, 775–787

Ain Shams University

Ain Shams Engineering Journal

www.elsevier.com/locate/asej
www.sciencedirect.com

ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING

UPFC with series and shunt FACTS controllers

for the economic operation of a power
system
Biplab Bhattacharyya *, Vikash Kumar Gupta, Sanjay Kumar

Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad 826004, India

Received 1 February 2014; revised 14 March 2014; accepted 31 March 2014

Available online 15 May 2014

KEYWORDS
FACTS devices;
Operating cost;
Optimal power flow;
Transmission loss;
Genetic Algorithm;
Differential Evolution
Abstract This paper presents the application of Genetic Algorithm (GA) and Differential Evolu-
tion (DE) technique for the minimization of transmission loss and simultaneous reduction in the
operating cost of the system using Flexible AC Transmission System (FACTS) devices. Three types
of FACTS devices, Thyristor Controlled Series Compensator (TCSC), Static VAR Compensator
(SVC) and Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC) are considered for this purpose. Optimal place-
ment of FACTS devices in the heavily loaded power system reduces transmission loss, control reac-
tive power flow, improves voltage profile of all nodes and also reduces operating cost. The system is
reactively loaded starting from base to 200% of base reactive load and the system performance is
observed without and with FACTS devices. The proposed technique is applied on IEEE 30-bus sys-
tem for the optimal setting of FACTS devices. Finally, how system performance is improved with
the use of UPFC along with other series and shunt FACTS controller is illustrated.
 2014 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Ain Shams University.

1. Introduction be continuously expanded and upgraded to cater the ever

Modern power systems are prone to widespread failures due to
increase in power demand, so power system engineers are cur-
rently facing challenges to improve power transfer capability
of the existing transmission system. Power systems need to
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 9431711085.
E-mail addresses: biplabrec@yahoo.com (B. Bhattacharyya),
vikash1146@gmail.com (V.K. Gupta), sanjayism2012@gmail.com
(S. Kumar).
Peer review under responsibility of Ain Shams University.
Production and hosting by Elsevier
2090-4479  2014 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Ain Shams University.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2014.03.013
growing power demand. Increase in power demand, restriction
on the construction of new lines, unscheduled power flow in
lines create congestion in the transmission network and
increase in transmission loss. Power flow through an ac trans-
mission line is a function of line impedance, the magnitude and
the phase angle between the sending end and the receiving end
voltages. Optimal power flow problem is of nonlinear and
nonconvex in nature and used widely for power system
planning and operation. Effective control of reactive power
compensation on weak nodes improves voltage profile, reduces
power loss and improves both steady state and dynamic
performance of the system. With the development of power
electronics it is possible to design power electronic equipment
of higher rating for high voltage systems. This actually led to
the introduction of Flexible AC Transmission System
776
Nomenclature
i, j node i & node j
Xij reactance of the transmission line
Xij(new) reactance of transmission line with TCSC
XTCSC reactance of the TCSC
CF(TCSC) cost function of TCSC in $/kVar
CF(SVC) cost function of SVC in $/kVar
CF(UPFC) cost function of UPFC in $/kVar
TCSCvalue, SVCvalue & UPFCvalue operating value of
FACTS devices
CTotalCost total operating cost of the system
CEnergy cost due to energy loss
CFacts investment cost of the FACTS devices
Pmin
ni ; Pmax
ni minimum and maximum limit of nodal active
power in the ith bus
Qmin max
ni ; Qni minimum and maximum limit of nodal reactive
power in the ith bus
Pni ; Qni nodal active and reactive power output of the
ith bus
Vmin
i ; Vi
max
minimum and maximum limit of voltage magni-
tude at ith bus
Vi voltage magnitude at bus i
Qmin max
gi ; Qgi minimum and maximum limit of existing nodal
reactive capacity in the ith bus
(FACTS) controllers such as Thyristor Controlled Series Com-
pensators (TCSC), Unified Power Flow Controllers (UPFC)
and Static Var Compensator (SVC). The concept of FACTS
was first introduced by Hingorani in [1]. These devices not only
have the capability in controlling active and reactive power
flow in an electrical network but also can redistribute power
flow even under highly loaded condition that ultimately have
the effect in reducing overall congestion. Hence FACTS con-
trollers can be used to increase system loadability as situation
demands. Steady state and transient stability is also improved
with the help of FACTS controller. TCSC is a series connected
devices used in power systems to control the reactance of a
transmission line thereby controls line power flow in one
way. SVC is a shunt connected device which regulates the volt-
age of transmission system at a selected terminal by controlling
reactive injections. UPFC is a combination of a static synchro-
nous compensator (STATCOM) and a static synchronous
series compensator (SSSC) coupled via a common DC voltage
link used for controlling active and reactive power flow
through the lines. It also has direct impact in controlling volt-
age. Reactive power flow control by FACTS devices to
increase transmission capacity is discussed in [2]. Optimal
placement of FACTS devices increases the power transfer limit
in the system as discussed in [3–5]. Minimization of transmis-
sion loss and improvement of voltage profile with the help of
FACTS controller is presented in [6]. Linear programming
(LP) optimization methodology is discussed in [7] for the reac-
tive power control in hybrid power system. Optimal power
flow along with the power injection model of FACTS devices
is the main issues of [8,9]. Linear programming approach is
used in [10] for optimum reactive power dispatch. An algo-
rithm that includes reactive power pricing concept is presented
in [11] for the minimization of active power loss as well as
B. Bhattacharyya et al.
Qgi existing nodal reactive capacity at node i
Vi, Vj voltage of ith and jth bus
Pij, Qij active and reactive power flow between ith & jth
bus.
Pji, Qji active and reactive power flow between jth & ith
bus
N number of lines
G0ij , B0ij real and imaginary components of bus admit-
tance matrix
dij phase angle between ith & jth bus.
Si, Sj total power injected at bus i & bus j by UPFC
Pi, Qi active and reactive power injected by UPFC at
ith bus
Pj, Qj active and reactive power injected by UPFC at
jth bus
Vs supply voltage by UPFC
øs phase angle of supply voltage Vs
hi, hj phase angle of voltages Vi and Vj
Iq reactive component of current
voltage stability improvement. An improved evolutionary
programming (IEP) technique to solve the optimal reactive
power dispatch (ORPD) problem is discussed in [12,13]. In
[14] author has presented enhanced Genetic Algorithm for
the solution of optimal power flow with both continuous and
discrete control variables. FACTS devices are used in [15]
for the improvement of available transfer capacity (ATC) dur-
ing normal as well as contingency situations using real-coded
GA. Jerbex et al. [16] provide an idea for the optimal alloca-
tions of FACTS devices, without considering the investment
cost of FACTS device. Das et al. [17] applied GA for the opti-
mum value of fixed and switched shunt capacitors in minimiz-
ing energy loss and in maintaining acceptable voltage profile at
load buses under different loading conditions on a radial dis-
tribution network. In [18] GA is used for the optimal power
flow solution for a six bus system. Graphical user interface
(GUI) based on GA is used in [19] for the determination of
optimal positions and magnitudes of multi-type FACTS
devices in large power systems in minimizing active power loss
of the system. Multi-objective problem of a power system is
solved by proper allocation of series and shunt FACTS con-
troller in [20]. Basu et al. [21] proposed DE algorithm for the
minimization of generator fuel cost using FACTS devices.
Verma et al. [22] used UPFC at the suitable locations of a
connected power network for congestion management.
Determination of optimal position and sizing of UPFC for
congestion management of transmission network is presented
in [23]. Optimal setting of UPFC devices to minimize the total
operating cost is discussed in [24]. Determination of optimal
locations of UPFC for enhancing the security of an intercon-
nected power system under single line contingency by using
evolutionary algorithmic approach was the main motto of
[25,26]. Performance analysis of different FACTS devices for
UPFC with series and shunt FACTS controllers for the economic operation of a power system 777

the static voltage stability enhancement is the main theme of

[27]. In [28] author has used Optimal Unified Power Flow Con-
troller (OUPFC) for minimization of real power loss as well as
total fuel cost. In [29] author has discussed system loading dis-
tribution factors and the effect after placement of UPFC in the
system load ability and operating cost.
In this paper three types of FACTS devices have been dis-
cussed namely, Thyristor Controlled Series Capacitor (TCSC),
Static Var Compensator (SVC) and Unified Power Flow Con-
troller (UPFC). It has been a rare research work where UPFC
along with both the series and shunt FACTS controllers is
used in minimizing the transmission loss problem in power sys-
tem. The main purpose of this present work is to determine the
optimal positions of the interconnected power system network Figure 2 Static model of SVC.
where the FACTS devices can be placed in such a way so that
over all transfer capacity of the system increases that ulti-
mately results minimum operating cost under different loading where Xij(new) is the reactance after the placement of TCSC; Xij
conditions. System performance is greatly affected by the type, the reactance of the transmission line and XTCSC the reactance
capacity of the FACTS controller and also the location where of the TCSC.
they are placed. TCSCs are ideal for the placement in lines
where reactive power flows are very high and the SVCs are
installed at the receiving end buses of the other lines where 2.2. Static Var Compensator (SVC)
major reactive power flows take place. Voltage magnitude
and the phase angle of the sending end buses of the lines where SVC is a shunt connected devices used to absorb reactive
major active power flow takes place are controlled by UPFC.
power from the bus or to inject reactive power to the bus where
Finally, GA and DE based algorithm is presented with
it is connected. SVC is parallel combination of capacitor and
FACTS devices and effectiveness of this technique is clearly
inductor and static model of SVC is shown in Fig. 2.
evident from the result obtained. A comparative study is made
between GA and DE approach to minimize the overall operat-
ing cost, which includes the cost, resulted due to transmission 2.3. Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC)
loss and the investment costs of FACTS devices under differ-
ent loading conditions. The UPFC concept was proposed by Gyugyi in 1991. It is able
to control, simultaneously or selectively all the parameters
2. Static modeling of FACTS devices affecting power flow in the transmission line (i.e., voltage,
impedance and phase angle). UPFC consists of two switching
FACTS devices are composed of static equipment used to converters operated from a common DC link, as shown in
increase power transfer capability of the network. It is also Fig. 3 and power injection model of UPFC is shown in
used to minimize transmission loss and to improve the voltage Fig. 4. The working range of the UPFC angle is between
profile of the system. Static model of TCSC, SVC and UPFC is 180 and +180.
discussed below:
3. Cost functions of FACTS devices
2.1. Thyristor Controlled Series Capacitors (TCSC)
Cost functions for installation of TCSC, SVC and UPFC are
TCSC consists of series compensating capacitor shunted by taken from [30]:
thyristor controlled reactor. It is modeled as a controllable TCSC:
reactance, inserted in series with the transmission line to adjust
the line impedance and thereby control the power flow as CFðTCSCÞ ¼ 0:0015ðTCSCvalue Þ2  0:7130ðTCSCvalue Þ
shown in Fig. 1.
þ 153:75 ðUS$=kVarÞ ð2Þ
XijðnewÞ ¼ Xij  XTCSC ð1Þ
SVC:

CFðSVCÞ ¼ 0:0003ðSVCvalueÞ2 :  0:3051ðSVCvalueÞ

þ 127:38 ðUS$=kVarÞ ð3Þ
UPFC:

CFðUPFCÞ ¼ 0:0003ðUPFCvalueÞ2  0:2691ðUPFCvalueÞ

þ 188:22 ðUS$=kVarÞ ð4Þ

where TCSCvalue, SVCvalue and UPFCvalues are the operat-

Figure 1 Static model of TCSC. ing values of the FACTS devices.
778
Figure 3 Static model of UPFC.
Figure 4 Power injection model of UPFC.
4. Optimal placement of FACTS devices
The main objective of this paper is to minimize the total oper-
ating cost under different loading conditions by the installation
of FACTS devices at the optimal location in the transmission
systems. The decision where they are to be placed is largely
dependent on the desired effect and the characteristics of the
specific system. SVCs are mainly used to provide the voltage
support at a particular bus and to inject reactive power flow
in the adjacent lines. Power flow through the lines can also
be changed by modifying the line reactance with the help of
TCSC. UPFCs are placed at the buses to improve the bus volt-
age of the system along with improvement in the power trans-
fer capacity of the lines. For increasing the system ability to
transmit power, FACTS devices are placed in such a way that
it can also utilize the existing generating units. The reason for
the placement of FACTS devices in the heavily loaded line is
that it results decrease in reactive power flow through these
lines. It has an indirect effect of redistributing of additional
power in the other sections of lines of the system in such a
manner that these lines are also not overloaded.
In the proposed method the decision for the placement of
FACTS devices in a line or at the remote end of a line is made
on the basis of power flow in each line. We have restricted
about the choice of number of FACTS devices. Here two cases
are considered for the optimal location and types of FACTS
devices using evolutionary techniques. In case I, only two types
of FACTS controller namely TCSCs and SVCs are used and
four locations are selected for the optimal placement of each
type of these devices. TCSC’s positions are selected by choos-
ing the lines carrying largest reactive power. Lines 25th, 41st,
28th and 5th are found as the lines for TCSC placement and
simultaneously series reactance of these lines are controlled.
Bus numbers 21st, 7th, 17th and 15th are found as the buses
where suitable reactive injection by SVC can improve the
B. Bhattacharyya et al.
system performance. The SVCs are placed at buses those are
at the finishing end of the lines carrying high reactive power.
In case II, three types of FACTS controllers namely TCSC,
SVC and UPFC are used and three positions are selected for
the optimal placement of each of these devices. UPFC’s posi-
tions are determined by identifying the lines carrying high
active power. It is observed that active power flow is very high
in lines 6th, 7th and 4th. These lines are again connected
between buses (2, 6), (4, 6) & (3, 4) respectively. Here the volt-
age magnitude and the phase angle of the 2nd, 4th and 3rd
buses are to be controlled as these are at the starting end of
the lines 6th, 7th and 4th respectively. Then TCSC’s positions
are selected by choosing the lines carrying high reactive power.
The series reactance of the lines 15, 20 and 28 is controlled by
placing TCSCs in these lines. SVC s are planned to be placed in
buses 7, 17 and 21 as these buses are the weak buses where suit-
able reactive injection can improve system performance. It can
be observed that the total number of FACTS controllers in
case II is not same as that of number of FACTS controllers
in case I. In case I, the TCSCs are placed in four lines where
as in case II, TCSCs are placed in three lines. Similarly three
weak buses are chosen for the placement of SVCs in case II
where as four buses are considered for the placement of SVC
in case I. This is done to show the clarity of advantages in
using UPFC in case II.
Finally, GA and DE based optimization algorithms are
used to minimize the objective functions with FACTS devices
for both the cases along with reactive generation of generators
and transformer tap positions.
5. Problem formulation with FACTS devices
The main objective is to find the optimal location of FACTS
devices along with network constraints so as to minimize the
total operational cost at different loading conditions. The
objective function which is to be minimized is twofold as it
includes cost of energy loss and the investment cost of FACTS
devices. Without FACTS devices, controlling existing reactive
capacities such as optimal setting of transformer tap positions,
reactive generations of generators and proper placement of
Shunt Var sources at weak nodes active power loss can be min-
imized to a certain extent. But if FACTS controllers are used
in addition of controlling existing reactive Sources, active
power loss can be reduced to a large extent. As Var generations
of the generators and controlling transformer tap settings
UPFC with series and shunt FACTS controllers for the economic operation of a power system
within their defined limits do not contribute any cost to the
operating cost of the system, here in the proposed approach
setting of transformer tap positions and reactive generations
of generators are included as controlling parameters along
with the FACTS devices.
The objective function is combinatorial. It consists of two
parts; first is the cost due to the energy loss and second is
the investment cost of FACTS devices. So the optimization
of the objective function becomes combinatorial where invest-
ment cost of FACTS devices is to be considered while minimiz-
ing transmission loss. In other words, the objective of the
proposed technique is to determine the optimum operating
cost under different cases of loading.
So, the objective function can be written as:
CTotal Cost ¼ CEnergy þ CFACTS
where CEnergy is the cost due to energy loss component and
CFACTS is the investment cost of the FACTS devices.
The following equality and in equality constraints are to be
satisfied:
The active and reactive nodal power should be within the
limits as
Pmin max
ni 6 Pni 6 Pni
Qmin max
ni 6 Qni 6 Qni
Again, these active and reactive nodal powers have to satisfy
voltages magnitude constraints: Vi min 6 Vi 6 Vi max .
As well as the existing nodal reactive capacity constraints:
Qmin max
gi 6 Qgi 6 Qgi .
Superscripts min, max are the minimum and maximum lim-
its of the variables.
The power flow equations between the nodes i-j after incor-
porating TCSC and SVC would appear as
Pij ¼ V2i G0ij  Vi Vj ðG0ij cos dij þ B0ij sin dij Þ
Qij ¼ V2i B0ij  Vi Vj ðG0ij sin dij  B0ij cos dij Þ
Pji ¼ V2j G0ij  Vi Vj ðG0ij cos dij  B0ij sin dij Þ
Qji ¼ V2j B0ij þ Vi Vj ðG0ij sin dij þ B0ij cos dij Þ
If an UPFC connected between bus ith & jth, the injected
power at bus ith (Si = Pi + jQi) and bus jth (Sj = Pj + jQj)
can be written as:
Pi þ V2s G0ij þ 2Vi Vs G0ij cosð/s  hi Þ  Vj Vs ½G0ij cosð/s  hj Þ
 B0ij sinð/s  hj Þ ¼ 0
Qi  Vi Iq  Vi Vs ½G0ij sinð/s  hi Þ  B0ij cosð/s  hi Þ ¼ 0
Pj  Vj Vs ½G0ij cosð/s  hj Þ þ B0ij sinð/s  hj Þ ¼ 0
Qj þ Vj Vs ½G0ij sinð/s  hj Þ  B0ij cosð/s  hj Þ ¼ 0
Si and Sj are the total power injection by UPFC at bus ith and
jth respectively. These changes in the power flow equations are
taken into consideration by appropriately modifying the
admittance bus matrix for the execution of load flow in evalu-
ating the objective function for each individual population of
779
generation in the cases of Genetic Algorithm and Differential
Evolution techniques.
6. Proposed approach
In the present problem, Genetic Algorithm (GA) and Differen-
tial Evolution (DE) techniques are used to determine the
optimal value of the FACTS devices to be connected with
the existing reactive power sources to maximize the system per-
formance whereas the location of FACTS devices is already
determined by power flow analysis.
Multi-types of FACTS devices are discussed here. TCSCs
are to modify reactances of some selected lines, SVCs control
the reactive injection at weak buses and UPFC is connected
ð5Þ at some specified buses to control Voltage, phase angle associ-
ated with these buses and impedances of the lines nearby to the
buses connected with UPFC. In addition transformer tap
positions along with reactive generations of the generators
are controlled. As a whole all these variables are to be opti-
mized by evolutionary optimization methods. It is to be men-
tioned that, during evaluation of objective function with the
parameters inside a string which contains FACTS devices
along with Var generation by generators and transformer tap
setting arrangements, the modified power flow Eqs. (6)–(13)
has to be included in the load flow program.
6.1. Genetic algorithm in brief
Genetic Algorithms (GAs) is an optimization algorithms based
on the mechanics of natural selection and genetics. GA con-
sists of main three operators, namely, reproduction, crossover
and mutation. The description of GA in brief is explained
below:
Initially populations of N strings are randomly created in
such a way so that the parameter values should be within
ð6Þ their limits. Then the objective function is computed for every
individual of the population. A biased roulette wheel is cre-
ð7Þ ated from the values obtained after computing the objective
function for all the individuals of the current population.
ð8Þ Thereafter the usual genetic operation such as reproduction,
crossover and mutation takes place. Two individuals are ran-
ð9Þ domly selected from the current population for reproduction.
Then Cross-over takes place with a probability close to one
(here 0.8). The crossover between two strings takes place in
such a manner that the particular type of elements (e.g.,
TCSC, SVC, UPFC, Transformer tap setting or Reactive gen-
eration of generators) of one string cross over with the same
type of elements of another string as shown in Fig. 5, and a
ð10Þ new set of strings are produced. Then mutation operation
with specific probability (very low) takes place. After comple-
ð11Þ tion of all genetic operations, the first generation is com-
pleted, and the second generation is about to start. In this
way, the GA is continued in order to reduce the cost of oper-
ð12Þ
ation in each generation until the optimum solution is
obtained.
ð13Þ
6.2. Differential evolution in brief
Differential Evolution (DE) is a population based algorithm
was proposed by Storn and Price (1995) to solve real-parame-
ter optimization problems. The optimization process in DE is
780
Figure 5 Crossover operation in GA.
Figure 6a String variables for IEEE-30 bus system with TCSC & SVC.
Figure 6b String variables for IEEE-30 bus system with TCSC, SVC & UPFC.
carried out using three basic operators: crossover, mutation
and selection.
Initial populations are created randomly that are repre-
sented by strings where the variables inside string are same
as that of GA. In DE each vector in the population becomes
a target vector. The term vector is used for a total length of
a string. Cost of a vector is determined by evaluating objective
function with the variables inside a vector and the process is
similar as that of DE technique. Each target vector is com-
bined with a donor vector and a random vector differential
in order to produce a trial vector. If the cost of the trial vector
is less than the target, the trial vector replaces the target in the
next generation. The donor vector is selected such that its cost
is either less than or equal to the target vector. Mutation in DE
is generally performed by generating a random value utilizing
a predefined probability density function. In DE the differen-
tial vector, where the contributors are the target, the donor
and two other randomly selected vectors perform the muta-
tion. The objective function is calculated for all the individual
of the new generation and the procedure is repeated till the
final goal is achieved.
String representing control variables using GA and DE is
shown in Figs. 6a and 6b. Flowchart of the proposed approach
is shown in Fig. 7.
7. Results and discussions
The proposed GA and DE based evolutionary technique is
implemented on IEEE-30 bus test system under different load-
ing conditions. FACTS devices are placed at the optimal loca-
tions as discussed above and comparative analysis of the
system performance with and without FACTS controller is
made. Table 1a shows the locations of TCSCs and SVCs in
B. Bhattacharyya et al.
the transmission network while Table 1b shows the locations
of TCSCs, SVCs and UPFCs in the transmission network.
Limits of FACTS devices and other controlling parameters
such as transformer tap positions and reactive generation of
generators are shown in Table 2. Reactive power flow without
and with FACTS devices in lines considering only TCSC and
SVC is shown in Table 3 using GA and DE based approach
whereas Table 4 shows reactive power flow without and with
FACTS devices in lines considering TCSC, SVC and UPFC
using GA & DE based approach for different loading condi-
tions. Bus voltages for 200% of base reactive loading with
FACTS and without FACTS are shown in Table 5. Magnitude
of control variables such as TCSCs and SVCs, along with reac-
tive generation of generators and transformer tap positions
using GA and DE based algorithmic approaches are shown
in Table 6a whereas magnitude of control variables such as
TCSCs, SVCs and UPFC, along with reactive generation of
generators and transformer tap positions using GA and DE
based algorithmic approaches are shown in Table 6b and
Table 7 shows the comparative analysis of active power loss
and operating cost of the system without and with FACTS
devices using GA and DE technique under different loading
conditions. Here two cases are considered for the selection
and optimal allocation of FACTS devices, in case I only two
type of FACTS devices (TCSC and SVC) are placed at the
locations defined as shown in Table 1a whereas in case II three
types of FACTS devices (TCSC, SVC and UPFC) are placed
as shown in Table 1b. After placement of FACTS devices reac-
tive power flow reduces significantly in both cases in lines using
evolutionary techniques.
From Table 1a, it is clear that TCSCs are placed in line
number 25, 41, 28 and 5 as at these lines reactive power flows
are very high while SVCs are placed at buses 21, 7, 17 and 15.
After installation of FACTS devices to these lines reactive
UPFC with series and shunt FACTS controllers for the economic operation of a power system 781

Figure 7 Flowchart of the proposed approach.

Table 1a Locations of TCSC & SVC in the transmission

power flow has been reduced considerably which is observed
network.
from Table 3. In IEEE-30 bus system, previously the lines
27, 26, 9 and 18 which were carrying very high reactive power
TCSC in lines SVC in buses now carry lesser amount of reactive power for all cases of load-
25, 41, 28, 5 21, 7, 17, 15 ings after placement of SVCs at 21, 7, 17 and 15 buses. These
buses are at the finishing end of the lines 27, 26, 9 and 18
respectively. Similarly it happened for the lines where TCSCs
are placed except in line 5 for IEEE-30 bus system as observed
Table 1b Locations of TCSC, SVC & UPFC in the trans- from Table 3. There are more or less no change in reactive
mission network. power flow for 150% and 200% of base reactive loading in
both GA and DE based approach in case of line 5. But as a
TCSC in lines SVC in buses UPFC in buses
whole, there is significant reduction in reactive power flow as
28, 20, 15 17, 7, 21 2, 4, 3 observed from Table 3.

Table 2 Limits of FACTS devices and other controlling parameters.

TCSC (pu) SVC (pu) UPFC Transformer Tap Reactive generation Qg
positions (pu)
0.025 (min) 0 (min) 0.1Vmax and angle 0.9 (min) Within the minimum and maximum
0.6 (max) 0.5 (max) lies between 180 to +180 1.1 (max) value of reactive generations of the
generators of the IEEE-30 bus system
 782
Table 3 Reactive power flows in lines without and with FACTS devices (TCSC & SVC) using GA & DE based techniques.
Line no. Base reactive load 150% Base reactive load 200% Base reactive load
Reactive power Reactive power Reactive power Reactive power Reactive power Reactive power Reactive power Reactive power Reactive power
flow without flow with FACTS flow with FACTS flow without flow with FACTS flow with FACTS flow without flow with FACTS flow with FACTS
FACTS (pu) using GA (pu) using DE (pu) FACTS (pu) using GA (pu) using DE (pu) FACTS (pu) using GA (pu) using DE (pu)
27 0.0939 0.0656 0.0690 0.1430 0.0613 0.0559 0.1925 0.0630 0.0638
26 0.0608 0.0380 0.0542 0.0735 0.0251 0.0058 0.0860 0.0173 0.0350
9 0.0731 0.0055 0.0038 0.0884 0.0064 0.0102 0.1032 0.0141 0.0119
18 0.0507 0.0527 0.0518 0.0930 0.0524 0.0481 0.1365 0.0608 0.0618
25 0.0441 0.0440 0.0537 0.0553 0.0494 0.0265 0.0664 0.0649 0.0512
41 0.0421 0.0217 0.0311 0.0581 0.0186 0.0174 0.0751 0.0248 0.0248
28 0.0419 0.0371 0.0400 0.0650 0.0376 0.0356 0.0883 0.0432 0.0434
5 0.0390 0.0384 0.0471 0.0387 0.0383 0.0383 0.0384 0.0381 0.0382

Table 4 Reactive power flows in lines without and with FACTS devices (TCSC, SVC & UPFC) using GA & DE based techniques.
Line no. Base reactive load 150% Base reactive load 200% Base reactive load
Reactive power Reactive power Reactive power Reactive power Reactive power Reactive power Reactive power Reactive power Reactive power
flow without flow using GA flow using DE flow without flow using GA flow using DE flow without flow using GA (TCSC, flow using DE
FACTS (pu) (TCSC, SVC & (TCSC, SVC & FACTS (pu) (TCSC, SVC & (TCSC, SVC & FACTS (pu) SVC & UPFC) (pu) (TCSC, SVC &
UPFC) (pu) UPFC) (pu) UPFC) (pu) UPFC) (pu) UPFC) (pu)
4 0.0277 0.0573 0.0754 0.0153 0.0638 0.0650 0.0025 0.0291 0.0422
6 0.0510 0.0033 0.0084 0.0312 0.0082 0.0088 0.0107 0.0123 0.0048
7 0.0240 0.2205 0.2667 0.0165 0.2329 0.2364 0.0086 0.1634 0.2012
9 0.0731 0.0001 0.0095 0.0884 0.0003 0.0190 0.1032 0.0033 0.0338

B. Bhattacharyya et al.
15 0.0685 0.0741 0.0682 0.0341 0.0459 0.0378 0.0016 0.0421 0.0352
20 0.0024 0.0125 0.0138 0.0089 0.0023 0.0024 0.0155 0.0042 0.0075
21 0.0020 0.0798 0.0872 0.0145 0.0440 0.0439 0.0313 0.0804 0.1000
27 0.0939 0.0617 0.0634 0.1430 0.0673 0.0721 0.1925 0.0492 0.0299
28 0.0419 0.0350 0.0361 0.0650 0.0379 0.0398 0.0883 0.0382 0.0314
UPFC with series and shunt FACTS controllers for the economic operation of a power system 783

Table 5 Bus voltages without and with FACTS devices for 200% reactive loading using GA & DE approach in IEEE-30 bus system.
Bus no. Bus voltage without Bus voltages with Bus voltages with Bus voltages with Bus voltages with
FACTS (pu) FACTS using GA FACTS using GA FACTS using DE FACTS using DE
(TCSC & SVC) (TCSC, SVC & UPFC) (TCSC & SVC) (TCSC, SVC &
(pu) Case I (pu) Case II (pu) Case I UPFC) (pu) Case II
1 1.0500 1.0500 1.0500 1.0500 1.0500
2 1.0338 1.0338 1.0338 1.0338 1.0338
3 1.0284 1.0140 1.0211 1.0138 1.0187
4 1.0231 1.0058 1.0144 1.0056 1.0115
5 1.0058 1.0058 1.0058 1.0058 1.0058
6 1.0182 1.0122 1.0165 1.0122 1.0152
7 1.0014 1.0043 1.0072 1.0042 1.0034
8 1.0230 1.0230 1.0230 1.0230 1.0230
9 1.0302 1.0532 1.0483 1.0514 1.0488
10 1.0135 1.0490 1.0510 1.0493 1.0534
11 1.0913 1.0913 1.0913 1.0913 1.0913
12 1.0295 1.0144 1.0274 1.0151 1.0227
13 1.0883 1.0883 1.0883 1.0883 1.0883
14 1.0096 1.0061 1.0113 1.0070 1.0075
15 1.0036 1.0113 1.0096 1.0122 1.0067
16 1.0122 1.0212 1.0300 1.0219 1.0292
17 1.0050 1.0383 1.0429 1.0389 1.0459
18 0.9906 1.0072 1.0068 1.0079 1.0057
19 0.9871 1.0091 1.0094 1.0097 1.0095
20 0.9926 1.0179 1.0186 1.0184 1.0193
21 0.9956 1.0389 1.0418 1.0391 1.0456
22 0.9965 1.0370 1.0397 1.0373 1.0431
23 0.9892 1.0037 1.0035 1.0044 1.0024
24 0.9819 1.0064 1.0082 1.0068 1.0096
25 0.9901 1.0018 1.0043 1.0021 1.0048
26 0.9651 0.9748 0.9773 0.9750 0.9778
27 1.0079 1.0127 1.0155 1.0129 1.0155
28 1.0121 1.0086 1.0119 1.0087 1.0110
29 0.9832 0.9866 0.9894 0.9867 0.9894
30 0.9696 0.9724 0.9753 0.9726 0.9753

Table 6a Magnitudes of control variables in the network with FACTS devices (TCSC & SVC) using GA & DE based techniques.
Loading SVC amount (pu) TCSC amount (pu) Reactive generation Qg (pu) Transformer tap position (pu)
GA DE GA DE GA DE GA DE
100% 0.0754 0.0767 0 0 0.3669 0.38 0.9478 0.9516
0.05 0.0472 0.0419 0.0419 0.2138 0.625 0.9012 0.9
0.0335 0.0359 0 0 0.3381 0 0.9005 0.9
0.0660 0.0654 0.0503 0.0506 0.2304 0.4 0.9282 0.9284
0.0827 0.0878
200% 0.2291 0.2273 0 0 0.3202 0.6 0.9873 0.9945
0.1610 0.1578 0 0 0.2790 0 0.9066 0.9
0.1044 0.1077 0 0 0.2963 0 0.9130 0.9109
0.1564 0.1593 0.0490 0.0485 0.2638 0 0.9 0.9
0.1718 0.3596

From Table 1b, it is clear that TCSCs are placed in line
number 28, 20 and 15 as at these lines reactive power flows
were very high while SVCs are placed at buses 17, 7 and 21,
the finishing end of the lines 21, 9 and 27. 2nd, 3rd and 4th
bus is selected for UPFC connection as there is large amount
of flow of active power in the lines 6, 4 and 7 respectively those
are at the starting end of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th bus. After instal-
lation of FACTS devices to these lines reactive power flow has
been reduced considerably which is observed from Table 4.
Reactive power flow reduces significantly in lines where
FACTS devices are connected for all cases of loading, only
there is slight increase in reactive power flow in lines 4 and 6
as seen from Table 4.
Even at 200% of base reactive loading with FACTS devices
voltage profile of all the buses are within the desired limit with
both GA and DE methods. Magnitudes of control variables
consists of FACTS devices such as TCSCs, SVCs and UPFCs,
reactive generation of generators and transformer tap
positions are within the operating limits for different loading
conditions as shown in Tables 6a and 6b. Active power loss
784 B. Bhattacharyya et al.

Table 6b Magnitudes of control variables in the network with FACTS devices (TCSC, SVC & UPFC) using GA & DE based
techniques.
Loading SVC amount (pu) TCSC amount (pu) UPFC amount Reactive generation Qg Transformer tap position
(pu) (pu) (pu)
GA DE GA DE GA DE GA DE GA DE
100% 0.0310 0.0385 0.0417 0.0339 0.0051 0.0038 0.1102 0.1145 0.9778 0.9506
0.0520 0.0509 0 0.0115 0.0129 0.0203 0.2321 0.0875 0.9132 0.9461
0.0804 0.0804 0 0.0090 0.0099 0.0190 0.1504 0.2436 0.9148 0.9
0.0960 0.0849 0.9201 0.9068
0.2385 0.2634
200% 0.1124 0.1371 0.0226 0.0164 0.0045 0.0053 0.0446 0.6 1.0142 1.0155
0.1664 0.1057 0 0.0056 0.0193 0.0186 0.2141 0.2345 0.9 0.9
0.2509 0.2832 0 0.0032 0.0134 0.0199 0.1712 0.5 0.9464 0.9342
0.2390 0 0.9464 0.9314
0.2467 0.0499

Table 7 Operating cost & active power loss analysis without and with FACTS devices with GA & DE based approach in IEEE-30
bus.
Reactive Active power loss Operating cost Evolutionary methods Active power Operating cost Cost of fACTS Net saving
loading without FACTS due to energy with FACTS devices loss with FACTS (in $) (B) devices (in $) (in $) (A–B)
devices (pu) loss (in $) (A) devices (pu)
100% 0.0711 3737016 GA (TCSC & SVC) 0.0405 2.1741 · 106 45,420 1,562,916
GA (TCSC, SVC & UPFC) 0.0385 2.0519 · 106 28,340 1,685,116
DE (TCSC & SVC) 0.0405 2.1740 · 106 45,320 1,563,016
DE (TCSC, SVC & UPFC) 0.0385 2.0634 · 106 39,840 1,673,616
150% 0.0742 3899952 GA (TCSC & SVC) 0.0432 2.3391 · 106 68,508 1,560,852
GA (TCSC, SVC & UPFC) 0.0428 2.2832 · 106 33,632 1,616,752
DE (TCSC & SVC) 0.0432 2.3390 · 106 68,408 1,560,952
DE (TCSC, SVC & UPFC) 0.0427 2.2910 · 106 46,688 1,608,952
200% 0.0795 4178520 GA (TCSC & SVC) 0.0572 3.0969 · 106 90,468 1,081,620
GA (TCSC, SVC & UPFC) 0.0540 2.9047 · 106 66,460 1,273,820
DE (TCSC & SVC) 0.0572 3.0967 · 106 90,268 1,081,820
DE (TCSC, SVC & UPFC) 0.0540 2.9202 · 106 81,960 1,258,320

and operating cost reduce significantly with FACTS devices

using GA and DE under different loading cases. In Case I,
where only TCSCs and SVCs are used as FACTS devices,
active power loss and operating costs are nearly same for both
GA and DE approach. But in case II, where TCSCs, SVCs and
UPFCs are used as FACTS devices, active power loss is con-
siderably reduced in each cases of loading if compared with
case I, though the magnitudes of active power loss is same with
GA and DE. Also there is significant difference in the operat-
ing cost when UPFCs along with TCSCs and SVCs are used
compared to the situation where TCSCs and SVCs are used
as FACTS devices. In all cases of loading, a large economic
benefit in terms of savings is observed by using GA and DE
based approach for the placement of FACTS controller. Again
it is to be mentioned that introduction of UPFC with other
FACTS devices results further decrease in active power loss
and operating cost compared to the operation with FACTS
devices excluding UPFC.
GA and DE based algorithms are run for 500 generations
and the number of populations is taken as 80 for IEEE-30
bus system. Figs. 8–10 show variation in operating cost with
generation using GA and DE technique for case I. Similarly, Figure 8 Variation in Operating Cost with generation for base
Figs. 11–13 show variation in operating cost with generation loading using GA & DE with TCSC & SVC in IEEE-30 bus
using GA and DE technique for case II. system.
UPFC with series and shunt FACTS controllers for the economic operation of a power system
Figure 9 Variation in Operating Cost with generation for 150%
of base loading using GA & DE with TCSC & SVC in IEEE-30
bus system.
Figure 10 Variation in Operating Cost with generation for
200% of base loading using GA & DE with TCSC & SVC in
IEEE-30 bus system.
Figure 11 Variation in Operating Cost with generation for base
loading using GA & DE with TCSC, SVC & UPFC in IEEE-30
bus system.
785
Figure 12 Variation in Operating Cost with generation for
150% of base loading using GA & DE with TCSC, SVC & UPFC
in IEEE-30 bus system.
Figure 13 Variation in Operating Cost with generation for
200% of base loading using GA & DE with TCSC, SVC & UPFC
in IEEE-30 bus system.
Cost of energy for per kW h is 0.06 $/kW h.
8. Conclusion
In this paper Genetic Algorithm (GA) and Differential Evolu-
tion (DE) approach are used for the optimal allocation and
setting of FACTS devices along with reactive generation of
generators and transformer tap positions. Two cases are con-
sidered for the optimal location and types of FACTS devices.
In the first case, TCSC as a series controller and SVC as a
shunt FACTS controller is used along with the existing power
system variables for obtaining economic operation of the
power system. In case II, UPFC is used with the series and
shunt FACTS controllers as mentioned along with the existing
power system variables in minimizing active power loss and
system operating cost as case I. It is observed that use of
UPFC along with series and shunt FACTS controller gives
better result than without UPFC. Active power loss and
786
operating cost reduced significantly and huge economic gain
are achieved with the placement of UPFC along with other
FACTS controller by both the GA and DE based optimization
techniques.
References
[1] Hingorani NG. High power electronics and flexible AC transmis-
sion system. IEEE Power Eng Rev 1998, July.
[2] Hingorani N. Flexible AC transmission. IEEE Spectrum
1993;30(4):40–5.
[3] Ramey D, Nelson R, Bian J, Lemak T. Use of FACTS power flow
controllers to enhance transmission transfer limits. In: Proceed-
ings American power conference, vol. 56, Part 1; April 1994. p.
712–8.
[4] Rajaraman R, Alvarado F, Maniaci A, Camfield R, Jalali S.
Determination of location and amount of series compensation to
increase power transfer capability. IEEE Trans Power Syst
1998;13(2):294–9.
[5] Orfanogianni T, Bacher R. Steady-state optimization in power
systems with series FACTS devices. IEEE Trans Power Syst
2003;18(1):19–26, February.
[6] Domınguez-Navarro JA, Bernal-Agustın JL, Dıaz A, Requena D,
Vargas EP. Optimal parameters of FACTS devices in electric
power systems applying evolutionary strategies. Int J Electr Power
Energy Syst 2007;29:83–90.
[7] Taghavi R, Seifi A. Optimal reactive power control in hybrid
power systems. Electr Power Compon Syst 2012;40:741–58.
[8] Xiao Y, Song YH, Sun YZ. Power flow control approach to
power systems with embedded FACTS devices. IEEE Trans
Power Syst 2000;17(4):943–50.
[9] Xiao Y, Song YH, Chen-Ching Liu, Sun YZ. Available transfer
capability enhancement using FACTS devices. IEEE Trans Power
Syst 2009;18(1):305–12.
[10] Jabr RA. Optimization of reactive power expansion planning.
Elect Power Compon Syst 2011;39:1285–301.
[11] Yousefi GR, Seifi H, Shirmohammadi D. A new algorithm for
reactive power management and pricing in an open access
environment. Europ Trans Electr Power 2008;18(2):109–26.
[12] Yan W, Lu S, David CYu. A novel optimal reactive power
dispatch method based on an improved hybrid evolutionary
programming technique. IEEE Trans Power Syst
2004;19(2):913–8.
[13] Ongsakul W, Tantimaporn T. Optimal power flow by improved
evolutionary programming. Electr Power Compon Syst
2006;34:79–95.
[14] Bakirtzis AG, Biskas PN, Zoumas CE, Petridis V. Optimal power
flow by enhanced genetic algorithm. IEEE Trans Power Syst
2002;17(2).
[15] Nireekshana T, Rao GK, Raju SSN. Enhancement of ATC with
FACTS devices using real-code genetic algorithm. Int J Electr
Power Energy Syst 2012;43:1276–84.
[16] Gerbex S, Cherkaoui R, Germond AJ. Optimal location of multi-
type FACTS devices in a power system by means of genetic
algorithm. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2001;16:537–44.
[17] Das D. Reactive power compensation for radial distribution
network using genetic algorithm. Electr Power Energy Syst
2002;24:573–81.
[18] Osman MS, Abo-Sinna MA, Mousa AA. A solution to the
optimal power flow using genetic algorithm. Appl Math Comput
2004;155:391–405.
[19] Ghahremani E, Kamwa I. Optimal placement of multiple-type
FACTS devices to maximize power system loadability using a
B. Bhattacharyya et al.
generic graphical user interface. IEEE Trans Power Syst
2013;28(2):764–78.
[20] Lashkar Ara A, Kazemi A, Nabavi Niaki SA. Multiobjective
optimal location of FACTS shunt-series controllers for power
system operation planning. IEEE TRANS Power Del
2012;27(2):481–90.
[21] Basu M. Optimal power flow with FACTS devices using
differential evolution. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst
2008;30:150–6.
[22] Verma KS, Singh SN, Gupta HO. Location of unified power flow
controller for congestion management. Electr Power Syst Res
2001;58:89–96.
[23] Chong B, Zhang XP, Godfrey KR, Yao L, Bazargan M. Optimal
location of unified power flow controller for congestion manage-
ment. Europ Trans Electr Power 2010;20(5):600–10.
[24] Venkatesh B, Gooi HB. Optimal siting of united power flow
controllers. Electr Power Compon Syst 2006;34:271–84.
[25] Shaheen HI, Rashed GI, Cheng SJ. Application and comparison
of computational intelligence techniques for optimal location and
parameter setting of UPFC. Eng Appl Artif Intell. Elsevier, vol.
23; 2010. p. 203–16.
[26] Shaheen HI, Rashed GI, Cheng SJ. Application of differential
evolution algorithm for optimal location and parameters setting
of UPFC considering power system security. Europ Trans Electr
Power 2009;19(7):911–32.
[27] Sode-Yome A, Mithulananthan N, Lee KY. Comprehensive
comparison of FACTS devices for exclusive loadability enhance-
ment. IEEJ Trans Electr Electron Eng 2013;8(1):7–18.
[28] Lashkar Ara A, Kazemi A, Nabavi Niaki SA. Modelling of
Optimal Unified Power Flow Controller (OUPFC) for optimal
steady-state performance of power systems. Energy Conver
Manage. Elsevier, vol. 52; 2011. p. 1325–33.
[29] Singh JG, Singh SN, Srivastava SC. Optimal placement of unified
power flow controller based on system loading distribution
factors. Electr Power Compon Syst 2009;37:441–63.
[30] Cai LJ, Erlich I. Optimal choice and allocation of FACTS
devices using genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings on twelfth
intelligent systems application to power systems conference;
2003. p. 1–6.
Biplab Bhattacharyya born in 9th January,
1970. He is currently working as Associate
Professor of Electrical Engineering in the
Indian School of Mines University, Dhanbad,
India. He has joined in the Electrical Engi-
neering department as Assistant Professor in
the year of 2007. Then he promoted to the
post of Associate Professor on 2010. He had
served department of Electrical Engineering of
National In-stitute of Technology, Durgapur,
India for six years as senior Lecturer. He was
in the position of Lecturer in the Electrical Engineering department of
BITS, Pilani, Rajasthan, India for nearly one year. He worked as
Assistant Engineer (Electrical Test), in a reputed cable industry for
nearly three years. He obtained B.Sc (Hons) in Physics from Calcutta
University, India in 1990. He obtained his B-Tech and M-Tech degree
in the field of Electrical machines and Power system from Calcutta
University in 1993 and 1995 respectively. He obtained his Phd degree
in Engineering from the department of Electrical Engineering, Jadav-
pur University, India in 2006. He has published several technical
papers in international/national journals and conference proceedings.
His research area mainly includes Evolutionary approaches, Power
system optimization, Planning, Dispatch, FACTS devices.
UPFC with series and shunt FACTS controllers for the economic operation of a power system 787
Vikash Kumar Gupta born in 9th January Sanjay Kumar born in 5th June 1980. He
1984. He received B. E. degree Anna Univer- received B.Tech degree from N.I.T Jamshed-
sity, Chennai in 2009, and the M.Tech degree pur in 2006, M.Tech from N.I.T Patna in
from B.I.T. Sindri, Dhnabad, Jharkhand in 2010. He has having two years of teaching
2011. Currently, he is the Research Scholar in experience and currently, he is the Research
the Electrical Engineering Department, Indian Scholar in the Electrical Engineering Depart-
School of Mines, Dhanbad, Jhark-hand. His ment, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad,
area of interest is Power System. Jharkhand.